Summary - core reading for the Post-structuralism theory PDF

Preview

Summary

core reading for the Poststructuralism theory ...

Description

POST- STRUCTURALISM SOURCE:http://polisciprof.blogspot.mx/2006/03/some-thoughts-onpoststructuralism-in.html 

The post-modernist movement did not replaced the liberal nor realist movement , it did hope to question many of the assumptions of these schools



Post-modernist is the response to structural or modernist logics to IR



STRUCTURAL APPROACH= various structures were paramount in the organization of society, by analyzing these structures we can develop a rather scientific approach to studying this things approached by a scientific method.



MODERNIST APPROACH= the belief in reasoned man over God, structuralists hope too produce objective theoretical rendering, empirical understandings



Poststructuralists hope to break out of this structural malady, and question its “statist, utilitarian, positivist and structuralists commitments” (Ashley 1986: 258) The key issue is that the political represents a form of institutional objectification in modernity that is not alienating (as opposed to the market or science, which were conceived as having an inherent objectifying logic. Post-structuralism operates with a notion of deconstruction which is a general mode of unsettling concepts and conceptual oppositions which are otherwise taken o be settled. The main point of deconstruction is to try to demonstrate and displace the effects produced by settle oppositions. Because they are considered to not be simply neutral. They are hierarchical. Deconstruction involves a method of extreme complexity but its concrete applications to IR have been limited. It sets out to undo dichotomous hierarchies so often taken for granted in international relations; these include ‘literal/figural, structure/superstructure, core/periphery, continuity/change, nature/culture, serious/no serious, individual/collective, real/ideological Post-modernist argue that the very act of comparing in order to uncover similarities and differences is a meaningless activity because it is impossible ever adequately to define elements so they can be constructed or linked, hence difference makes comparative politics a pointless enterprise, a sham. Post-modernist are sceptical to science and technology because it is thoroughgoing and unqualified, its is rejection of rationalism and reason appear irreposinsible to its critics.















Post-modern methodological innovation is linked to substantive theoretical challenge. Developments in the field of law in general, and international law in particular, are a case in point. Post-modernists argue that there are parallels between legal interpretation and the interpreting of literary texts The death of the author, defined narrowly, closes off the study of some topics, reinforces others and opens up still others. In the absence of the author, for example, the appropriateness of analysing the writings of a single theorist (whether it be Machiavelli, Hans Morgenthau or Hedley Bull) is called into question. Post-modernists might choose to deconstruct these classical texts of international relations but not for insight into the intentions or motives of the author. In another example, if the status of the author is diminished, the intentions of those who drafted a treaty need not concern students of international relations. The treaty, as text, must be granted independence.



in IR. In time, poststructuralists might have more impact on the discipline



Modernists seek to restrict interpretation; they aim to ‘arrest ambiguity and control the proliferation of meaning’.97 They generally assume that texts are produced to communicate a precise message from author to reader without loss of content or distortion of meaning. The intent is to write so tightly, reason so logically, that readers (students, colleagues and anonymous reviewers) are compelled to agree with the argument. In the extreme, the goal is to ‘capture the reader and his or her commitment’. But the post-modernists say this makes the reader ‘a potential victim’.



LIMITS OF POSTSTRUCTURALISM: The most common criticism raised about the poststructuralist movement is: So what? The post structural movement, while questioning many of the realist and liberal assumptions, does very little in the way of proposing a theory of their own. I think this critique is important but not the most salient. Ashley recommends that we be more aware of “logo centric’ thought, and Der Derian argues that IR scholars should have some answer for the new “spaces” in international politics. Campbell suggests that IR should be aware of the identity/difference paradigm and the role of domestic politics in foreign policy. While the post structural movement has some interesting things to add to the discipline, ultimately they provide no evidence on how to correct these seemingly glaring problems. Scholars like Campbell, moreover, are threatened by their own methodological and empirical problems. Drawing on the work of Moravscik, I argue that the liberal theory better describes the role of domestic society in IR. In time, poststructuralists might have more impact on the discipline The importance of post-modern authors may be diminished, but they are still possessed by a quest. They are dedicated to expanding and enlarging the space available to the reader, to producing a ‘writerly text’. They seek to encourage a plurality of meaning and to invent a text that is

exposed, unsettled, undefined – a text that embraces and encourages many interpretations On the other hand, post-modern international relations is in its infancy and thus, like many incipient paradigms, its overall shape and character is vague, its substantive contribution still shadowy and fragmentary. The direction of its development is far from certain. We are told it speaks to ‘puzzles’ and ‘strives to illuminate general issues. It looks to effect rather than cause.’139 Post-modernism emphasises openness and a pluralism of interpretation. Will such traits foster an increased tolerance in the discipline? One thing seems apparent: post-modern international relations has no intention of making scientific claims for its insights, and it is best taken at its word. A greater acceptance and appreciation of qualitative methods may emerge and gain a greater audience. One may, of course, credit all this to a ‘backlash’ against decades of dominance by the scientific paradigm. Or one may describe it as merely the normal swing of the paradigmatic pendulum rather than as a motion initiated by post-modernism. But it would be an error to dismiss entirely the impact of post-modernist methodology on international relations. For even if postmodernism only intensifies tendencies already in effect, it may function to push the arc of the pendulum further than usual. That might, just possibly, throw the discipline off balance, or even expand its horizons.

CONCLUSION: If post-modernism denies any role to the author (collective or individual), the privilege of authority is undercut and the responsibility of authority also evaporates. The post-modern denial of causality (motive or origins of phenomena) removes the burden of agency from individuals and groups (decisionmaking bodies, elected officials, etc.). Since no single human being or collective group can be held accountable for any situation (text), no one is the ‘author’ of (text) events. The result, depending on how one looks at it, can be either the absence of obligation or freedom from accountability. In sum, post-modern international relations is outrageous. It pleases some and frightens others; it leaves few untouched. At times it shakes us loose of our preconceptions, but often it yields little that is new or innovative and gives added strength to conclusions that are consistent with conventional views. Surely some of the insights it offers could have been arrived at independently of postmodernism. But other approaches, other challenges, have been far less successful in attracting attention to their concerns with a drama and provocation that conveys urgency. The post-modernists have put their issues on the international Relations agenda in a dramatic fashion. The post-modern project is ceaselessly to query and interrogate, rather than to ‘affirm a new identity, authenticity or disciplinary purity’.136 It

aims to ‘destabilise and render open to question all claims to an absolute foundation It rejects the modernist bases for knowledge claims but says all other grounds are equally arbitrary. It contends that most social questions are simply undividable, that most knowledge is precarious and in doubt. It speaks of death: of the subject, of the author and of the order of representation Postmodernism importantly seeks to identify a contemporary state of the world, the period that is following the modernist period. Postmodernism seeks to identify a certain juncture, and to work within the new period. Post-structuralism, on the other hand, can be seen as a more explicitly critical view, aiming to deconstruct ideas of essentialism in various disciplines to allow for a more accurate discourse....